However, to understand the point Bjørn makes, you must carefully read and understand section 9 of his review, D3 against the D300: FX vs DX format. He doesn't write for a sound bite, just tell me which is better audience and his English (very good, but I assume not his first language) is not a quick read.

"If you on the other hand set up the systems so as to provide the same field of view from a given distance, the DX format is given the bad cards because it will have lower detail magnification [lens] and thus need the bigger secondary magnification [enlargement], both of which aspects will potentially adversely impact the final outcome."

What Bjorn is asserting is that detail is better on the larger format because you are using longer focal lengths (greater magnification equaling greater detail) and that accomplishing the same with the smaller format requires more enlargement using smaller photosites which increases noise and reduces dynamic range.

There are insignificantly more pixels on the D300 sensor than on a D3 or D700 sensor, and if all you have is a 300mm lens and you need to crop closer to your subject (such as small birds), then you will get significantly more pixels on the subject with the D300 sensor.

There are insignificantly more pixels on the D300 sensor than on a D3 or D700 sensor, and if all you have is a 300mm lens and you need to crop closer to your subject (such as small birds), then you will get significantly more pixels on the subject with the D300 sensor.

"If you on the other hand set up the systems so as to provide the same field of view from a given distance, the DX format is given the bad cards because it will have lower detail magnification [lens] and thus need the bigger secondary magnification [enlargement], both of which aspects will potentially adversely impact the final outcome."

What Bjorn is asserting is that detail is better on the larger format because you are using longer focal lengths (greater magnification equaling greater detail) and that accomplishing the same with the smaller format requires more enlargement using smaller photosites which increases noise and reduces dynamic range.

It all boils down to pixel quality since the amount of pixel is the same on both bodies. Put it otherwise, what is the gap in noise/DR between DX and FX pixels at low ISO? Most analysis I have read claim that it is around 1/3 stop considering a given technology. It means that - in theory - a D300 at ISO100 would be better than a D3 at ISO200. Since the D3 doesn't have a real ISO 100 setting, this would indicate that the D300 would in fact be able to achieve better absolute low ISO image quality than the D3.

This isn't the case in reality because they are using different sensor technologies. Looking at it the other way around, Nikon had to develop better sensor technology for the D3 in order to justify the price premium of the higher end body accross the ISO range.

Quote from: Tony Beach

There are insignificantly more pixels on the D300 sensor than on a D3 or D700 sensor, and if all you have is a 300mm lens and you need to crop closer to your subject (such as small birds), then you will get significantly more pixels on the subject with the D300 sensor.

More pixels per unit area, which is essentially of no practical consequence other than the potential impact on pixel quality discussed above.

It means that - in theory - a D300 at ISO100 would be better than a D3 at ISO200. Since the D3 doesn't have a real ISO 100 setting, this would indicate that the D300 would in fact be able to achieve better absolute low ISO image quality than the D3.This isn't the case in reality because they are using different sensor technologies...

I am a confused reader.I think both have CMOS sensors, and both have a "base" ISO of 200. I think ISO 100 is a "low" setting?

What i am curious about is the following.At base iso, (200), which is the better sensor/camera, and which has better DR for landscape photography?Say, distant foliage?

It all boils down to pixel quality since the amount of pixel is the same on both bodies. Put it otherwise, what is the gap in noise/DR between DX and FX pixels at low ISO? Most analysis I have read claim that it is around 1/3 stop considering a given technology. It means that - in theory - a D300 at ISO100 would be better than a D3 at ISO200. Since the D3 doesn't have a real ISO 100 setting, this would indicate that the D300 would in fact be able to achieve better absolute low ISO image quality than the D3.

You are confused about the "native" ISO on the D300, but nonetheless I think there are other issues to consider beyond the sensor in this discussion that may well have a greater bearing -- namely the lenses used to attain a given field of view.

Quote

This isn't the case in reality because they are using different sensor technologies. Looking at it the other way around, Nikon had to develop better sensor technology for the D3 in order to justify the price premium of the higher end body accross the ISO range.

As I understand it, the D3/D700 sensor was designed to deliver optimum results under artificial lighting, particularly when the ISO is pushed. For landscape photography using base ISO that makes comparisons with the D300 less of a slam dunk than many seem to think it is, at least as far as the sensors are concerned. Now the D300 sensor does not appear to be optimized for daylight either, but I don't think any DSLR ever has been (they are more generalist in the design of their sensor's spectral characteristics) and in that regard DSLRs haven't fully matured yet.

Quote

More pixels per unit area, which is essentially of no practical consequence other than the potential impact on pixel quality discussed above.

Sorry to disagree with you, but (as I already wrote) if you are attempting to get as much reach as you can from a given focal length than having more pixels does make a difference, and the difference can be significant since the D3 or D700 in DX mode delivers about 40% of the pixels you get compared to using a D300.

I could have bought the D700 this summer, but I passed on it because I am getting excellent results with my D300. Instead I bought more lenses and I am going to wait until Nikon releases a smaller body, high MP FX DSLR that I can afford; I'm hoping that it will be around $3000 and available before next winter.

You are confused about the "native" ISO on the D300, but nonetheless I think there are other issues to consider beyond the sensor in this discussion that may well have a greater bearing -- namely the lenses used to attain a given field of view.

Not sure what I meant in fact... but it doesn't make a lot of sense now that I re-read what i wrote above.

Quote from: Tony Beach

Sorry to disagree with you, but (as I already wrote) if you are attempting to get as much reach as you can from a given focal length than having more pixels does make a difference, and the difference can be significant since the D3 or D700 in DX mode delivers about 40% of the pixels you get compared to using a D300.

I meant in terms of image quality. I am fully aware of the difference in terms of DoF and reach. If my D3 didn't offer more DR, I would still be shooting with a D2x.

Yes, I am, but I don't believe that Nikon/Sony will keep investing enough in DX... all my DX lenses have gone the Yahoo Auction route.

This is a lens issue, so now we are going OT. As far as I'm concerned Nikon has not seriously met gaps in DX lenses; OTOH, I do find my Nikkor 14-24/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 VR very useful on my D300, and somehow suspect I would use them less on an FX DSLR and use the Nikkor 24-70/2.8 more (which means I would have to buy one, and I plan on that being my next lens for that very reason).

This is a lens issue, so now we are going OT. As far as I'm concerned Nikon has not seriously met gaps in DX lenses; OTOH, I do find my Nikkor 14-24/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 VR very useful on my D300, and somehow suspect I would use them less on an FX DSLR and use the Nikkor 24-70/2.8 more (which means I would have to buy one, and I plan on that being my next lens for that very reason).

Tony,I also have, and love, a D300, 14-24 and 70-200 - just gotta know why you wouldn't use your 14-24 and 70-200 on an FX body very often? They're FX lenses and among the best Nikon makes. What is your reasoning on this?

Tony,I also have, and love, a D300, 14-24 and 70-200 - just gotta know why you wouldn't use your 14-24 and 70-200 on an FX body very often? They're FX lenses and among the best Nikon makes. What is your reasoning on this?

Poor edge performance on the 70-200/2.8 VR, which would make primes more desirable; overly exaggerated wide angle of view on the 14-24/2.8 on FX, at least for me that would make it more of a novelty lens than the everyday lens it is on my DX cameras.